Forgot your password?

Comment: Re:Irrelevant... (Score 1) 170

by roman_mir (#46799913) Attached to: Obama Delays Decision On Keystone Pipeline Yet Again

Oil used to be 13 dollars a barrel in the late nineties (circa 1999). The inflation (money creation) is 800 percent since that time, now that the price of oil is over 104 dollars a barrel.

Inflation is expansion of the money supply, nothing else. This is how much money has devalued over this short period of time.

Comment: Re:Irrelevant... (Score 1) 170

by roman_mir (#46799703) Attached to: Obama Delays Decision On Keystone Pipeline Yet Again

Wrong, wrong and once again: wrong. You can't adjust for inflation based on the mainstream definition of inflation, which is completely off the rocker. Real inflation is a number of times higher than the numbers that are being propagandised for the popular consumption. Quite the opposite, if you want to understand inflation, look at the prices of oil.

As to supply and demand, the world is producing much more oil and gas today than it produced previously and even with growth of demand, the supply is still able to cover the demand. What the supply cannot do is fight inflation.

Comment: Re:Irrelevant... (Score 1) 170

by roman_mir (#46799593) Attached to: Obama Delays Decision On Keystone Pipeline Yet Again

Cost of oil has nothing to do with Keystone pipeline and such, it is directly related to the value (lack of value) of the dollar.

But you can still thank your federal government with the Federal reserve for that. Just like you can thank them for the prices of food going up (and of-course all other prices, including the stock and bond and housing markets' prices, which is their intention in the first place)

Comment: Re:Milk/Beef prices as well? (Score 1) 371

by roman_mir (#46798529) Attached to: Beer Price Crisis On the Horizon

Don't you worry about increasing prices, your government, the Federal reserve, main stream 'economists' and all the media is telling you that you don't have inflation... all that while the Fed is printing money like crazy, you know it as QE, but that's just an euphemism for inflation.

All of the recent articles that are coming out are trying to justify prices going up with 'bad weather', 'disease' even 'cartels'.

The reality is of-course that the only real reason your prices are going up is because the value of your money is being destroyed and you are being fed propaganda that it is exactly what you need: more inflation.

The ONLY people that would NOT buy something today if they knew that tomorrow the item they are after would fall in price are INVESTORS, who will not buy an asset if they expect the price of an asset to drop.

Normal consumers buy things today because they need them today, they even pay a PREMIUM for these things (since they are buying so much on credit, so the cost of credit should be also counted towards the cost of the items they buy).

The standard arguments for inflation are all nonsense, government propaganda. They are brainwashing all of you, every day, every minute of every day, and so many people end up arguing for this government propaganda, that you can be certain about one thing: people are stupid and advertising works very well.

As to beef and milk prices, again, that's inflation. But ALSO you can blame other government created problems, such as this nonsense that started a couple of decades ago, where large factory beef and milk producers (factory farmers) lobbied the federal government to impose these new taxes on small ranches, that used State lands to allow their livestock to graze there. That is by the way, what you are observing in Nevada. When the feds come to a State land with land taxes, taxes on the land that they are not actually involved with, taxing lands where they are not building any infrastructure, then you know that there are special interests in play.

How many small ranches were shut down because they couldn't afford the millions of dollars that they would have to pay for letting their cows graze on those lands (that nobody else uses for any purpose)? This is lobbying by the factory farms, the type that holds cows in enclosed cages, where the cows never see any grazing lands at all.

Anyway, enjoy your inflation, enjoy your lobbying, all of it is just a reflection of one singular problem: the federal government usurping unauthorised powers to destroy your individual rights. But at least learn what exactly is happening around you.

Comment: Re:Are you kidding (Score 3, Interesting) 805

by roman_mir (#46765505) Attached to: Study Finds US Is an Oligarchy, Not a Democracy

You are correct in that the Republicans in the USA are not actually free market capitalists, which is what USA is supposed to be - a free market capitalist Republic.

Republicans are not different from Democrats in that they have their own constituents and those are the people that are tightly connected to the government and the Federal reserve is sponsoring them.

Unfortunately for the USA (and really for the world in general) USA Republic has degenerated into a 'democracy', which really only means that the majority of people are kept in the dark of who is truly running the show, but that is the problem with the mob, the collective, you can't have a democracy that does not degenerate into oligarchy, because the people are stupid and will vote against their self interest, however when I say that I do NOT mean what the average /.er means. I do NOT mean that voting for free market capitalism is voting against your own self interest, quite the contrary. An average (not one of the top wealthiest people) person should always vote LIBERTARIAN (or more correctly - free market capitalist, whatever that is. It can be a libertarian or it can be an anarcho capitalist or an objectivist, doesn't really matter much which one of those).

However the mob votes for the short term satisfaction that is promised by any lizard politician and the end result is always the same: the politicians end up with all the power, the individuals end up stripped of their rights and of their property, basically of their right to pursue happiness on their own terms.

The politicians end up gatekeepers for the top most connected people, the government is a mafia that uses threat of violence to destroy individual freedoms and sell them to the top bidders.

Free market capitalist republic (or even a benevolent dictatorship, like Singapore) works to improve the conditions for all people by allowing the true private property rights and self determination, people work to improve their own situation and as a result they increase the overall wealth in the system. The top wealthiest people do NOT need free market capitalism, they are just fine within a system that is corrupt, they can afford to purchase the gate keepers.

It is the middle class and the POOREST of the people that benefit from free market capitalism, they get the lowest prices and the biggest selection of all products and services that the system builds.

19th century USA was a very good example of what free market capitalist system does to improve the standard of living for all people, not for the richest people, but for everybody. The standard of living was rising faster than at any other time in history because of the freedom, private property rights, the rule of law (rule of law means applying laws equally to everybody regardless of their personal circumstance, that is true justice and morality, not what the mob thinks morality and justice are).

Today that example is found in Singapore, Hong Kong, Switzerland, China, but actually the Scandinavian countries have been on the correct path for the last 20 years, since the time they started moving in the right direction 20 years ago, when they finally destroyed their economies with socialism. Today they are much more capitalistic and responsible (have little to no debt) than the so called 'capitalist' nations like the USA.

Of-course currently the ECONOMIC STUPIDITY is reaching some insane local maximum, with the vast majority of the population believing in nonsense, Keynesianism, socialism, welfare state, other such equally destructive patterns of behaviour, so for example in Switzerland there will be a referendum to attempt and introduce a minimum wage and a welfare system, those are huge mistakes and the only reason the Swiss can even talk about it is the fact that they grew their economy so much in an actual free market capitalist system, so now they just may be ready to start destroying it with the socialist nonsense.

In any case, as I said, people are very very stupid, the majority have no clue about the economics and how it works and what is in fact in their best interest. The special socialist groups that benefit from the dependency state and from poverty (they thrive on the poverty votes and movements) are using so much propaganda on the general population, that at this point average economic intelligence is probably the lowest in history of human kind. The cavemen understood economics much better than the current population, at least the cavemen didn't buy into demand side nonsense, they knew that they had to produce stuff to enjoy higher standard of living.

I don't have any illusions about the people around me, they are stupid, economically illiterate, they act against their long term self interest and they will fight to keep that nonsense going, so from my perspective right now it makes complete sense to try and live outside of any established system of nations and states, to structure affairs in a way that would minimise the damage by the political systems established in the vast majority of the world today. Be smart, don't ground yourself, ensure that your assets are global, not local, ensure that your business is never tied to the place where you are supposed to pay taxes, pay attention to how it is done by the people that know what they are doing, etc. etc.

Comment: Superior pilots (Score 3, Interesting) 101

by Todd Knarr (#46764331) Attached to: Your <em>StarCraft II</em> Potential Peaked At Age 24

I'm minded though of a saying: "The superior pilot uses his superior piloting judgement to avoid needing to demonstrate his superior piloting skill.". The study tends to bear that out too, as they comment that the decline disappears when you look only at the end results (the score). And in the end, if you're better at juggling dozens of things at once and react faster than your opponent and consistently lose to him, you're consistently losing to him.

Comment: Re:Cry more, cupcake... (Score 1) 225

by Todd Knarr (#46763971) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer

That, though, is talking about the development environment itself. Yes, there the developers should be in control of the machines. DevOps, though, is about having developers actually doing operations tasks in the production environment. That's a bad thing, because what developers are good at is very very bad in production. You don't want developers alpha-testing code and fixes where a failed test brings all of your customers to a screeching halt while the developer does a few more iterations to get his fix working right. Plus, frankly most of Operations is boring and tedious (or at least it should be) and as a developer I have little or no interest in making it my day job. I want to solve the problem of making the deployment scripts bulletproof and go on to the next problem, not spend my day watching instances spin down and up (because if I did my job right, that's all the Ops people are going to need to do).

Comment: Re:It's a Great Learning Experience (Score 2) 225

by Todd Knarr (#46763805) Attached to: How 'DevOps' Is Killing the Developer

The difference is between developers knowing the operations side and being the operations side. Developers need to know the operations side to know how to write software that Ops can install and manage. And they should be involved in the development environment and installation in the testing environment so any gotchas can be addressed quickly and the developers know exactly what happened and can go back and make sure it doesn't happen again (especially in production). And of course when things really go pear-shaped during production deployments it never hurts to have the developers on tap to tell Ops whether there's a simple, quick workaround that'll salvage the deployment or whether it's time to roll back until they can fix the problem. But those are a far cry from developers doing Operations support and administration work on a daily basis. Frankly they're two radically different skill-sets. They're related, sure, but having a developer doing Ops as a regular job is like having Kelly Johnson keeping a fleet of Piper Cubs in shape. Sure he can do it, and technically he can probably do it better than a regular mechanic, but in a month or so he'd be bored to tears and walking out to go work somewhere where they'd actually let him do his job designing and building planes like the SR-71.

Comment: Re:Simple problem, simple solution (Score 0, Flamebait) 359

by roman_mir (#46762747) Attached to: San Francisco's Housing Crisis Explained

Up until the 1970s we could build like craz

... ask yourself a question, why is it that everything in USA was done "up until the 1970s" and then all of a sudden there was a gigantic decline (from building, to meaningful manufacturing jobs, to wage disparity, to ability to afford anything, etc.etc.etc.)?

So what is it that happened in the 70s that changed the USA economy so much? 1971 - Nixon defaults on the gold US dollar. The reason? Inflation that was caused by the Fed, all the massive government that could never be paid for with any amount of taxes (never mind the insane tax rates before that time).

It's the government, my dear, USA government has destroyed USA economy.

Comment: it IS safer (Score 2) 580

by roman_mir (#46761383) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

What if this was not 'OpenSSL' but instead it was some form of 'ClosedSSL' library that had this problem in it?

NSA would still have access to THAT code, you can bet your ass they would, they wouldn't leave a project like that alone. However nobody else would know (unless stumbling upon it by chance or being able to access the source OR if some insider SOLD that information to somebody on the outside and now you'd have a vulnerability that is exploited by the gov't and by shadiest of the organisations/people out there).

This does not change the discussion in terms of open source code being safer, this changes the discussion around certain practices of development / testing and also this may attract more attention of people towards the SECURITY of our information on the Internet and hopefully we'll move in the direction of working out the details of actually much more SECURE methods of communications.

I certainly have a few ideas of my own that I would like to implement now, but never mind that. The point is that this is good stuff, it finally shed a light on this topic, that should have had much more light on it for a much longer period of time in the first place.

We need better methods around building security within our systems and I think this raises the bar.

Comment: How would proprietary software have handled this? (Score 4, Insightful) 580

by Todd Knarr (#46761287) Attached to: How Does Heartbleed Alter the 'Open Source Is Safer' Discussion?

This doesn't really change it, because think how a proprietary SSL library would've handled this. The vulnerability was found specifically because the source code was available and someone other than the owners went looking for problems. When was the last time you saw the source code for a piece of proprietary software available for anyone to look at? If it's available at all, it's under strict license terms that would've prevented anyone finding this vulnerability from saying anything to anyone about it. And the vendor, not wanting the PR problem that admitting to a problem would cause, would do exactly what they've done with so many other vulnerabilities in the past: sit on it and do nothing about it, to avoid giving anyone a hint that there's a problem. We'd still have been vulnerable, but we wouldn't know about it and wouldn't know we needed to do something to protect ourselves. Is that really more secure?

And if proprietary software is written so well that such vulnerabilities aren't as common, then why is it that the largest number of vulnerabilities are reported in proprietary software? And that despite more people being able to look for vulnerabilities in open-source software. In fact, being a professional software developer and knowing people working in the field, I'm fairly sure the average piece of proprietary software is of worse quality than the average open-source project. It's the inevitable effect of hiring the lowest-cost developers you can find combined with treating the fixing of bugs as a cost and prioritizing adding new features over fixing problems that nobody's complained about yet. And with nobody outside the company ever seeing the code, you're not going to be embarrassed or mocked for just how absolutely horrid that code is. The Daily WTF is based on reality, remember, and from personal experience I can tell you they aren't exaggerating. If anything, like Dilbert they're toning it down until it's semi-believable.

Comment: Re:Grudgingly reluctantly... (Score 1) 385

by roman_mir (#46761163) Attached to: Slashdot Asks: How Do You Pay Your Taxes?

By the way, if we are already on the topic of taxes, anybody who is interested should listen to this show, not only does it discuss the illegality of taxes, but also it provides some insight on what the USA citizens doing today to reduce their taxes (offshore accounts, etc.etc.)

Americans, you need to listen to this of-course, you should eliminate your federal government, a good step towards that (before you end up shooting the bastards) is to stop paying your taxes.

What is worth doing is worth the trouble of asking somebody to do.